Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 79)
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH 1998
PROFESSOR JOHN
KREBS, MR
COLIN READ
and MR JOHN
HANSFORD
60. Your maths is probably much better than
mine but can you tell me what the average figure would be?
(Mr Hansford) The average figure is something
under £20,000 so it is about 20K per head which is a standard
figure for staff transfer under normal public Civil Service transfers.
61. Nevertheless it adds up to £4 million
in a budget which I would share the view ought to be part of the
overall budget and I cannot really understand why it is not considered
part.
(Mr Hansford) It was a cost as a consequence of
the project.
62. Therefore, if the project is at the
end of the day when we are totting up the loss for the project
then we ought to include it.
(Mr Hansford) You ought to, therefore, add it
in Figure 10 to the heading under "Budget" which is
48.9. There is no budget in there for what staff transfers would
have cost. If you add it in there you have got to add it in on
the other side by an equal amount.
63. Right, but we are agreed that we should
regard this as a single budget.
(Mr Hansford) It is a cost of carrying through
the project.
64. Just one final question. You talked
earlier about the transition from a wish list to a feasible project
and in that there was a great deal of cutting back. In very general
terms do you regard that the users of the present building are
satisfied and are you satisfied that you have a facility which
will actually last for the 125 years that it was designed for?
(Professor Krebs) I think the best way to answer
that, Chairman, is by illustrative example. The purpose of creating
the centre was to have for the United Kingdom a world-class institution
in oceanography, which surprisingly we did not have before then.
One measure of its quality is that we are able to attract in superstars
from other countries to come and work at the centre. That is happening.
So the answer are users satisfied is partly illustrated by saying
that top scientists from the United States are willing to move
to Britain earning much lower salaries than they would in the
States in order to work at the Oceanography Centre.
65. I accept that. Are they physically satisfied
with the environment in which they are expected to work?
(Professor Krebs) It is a very appropriate environment
and people would not want to move there if it was not an appropriate
environment.
66. I accept there may be a status to this
and an image of how important the work going on is, and I am sure
it is, and people might want to be associated with that and they
might put up with a great deal. I am asking you about the environment
in which you are expecting people to work.
(Professor Krebs) I phoned up the Director yesterday
afternoon to ask him for a current view—I see the Director
very regularly of course but to ask for current views—after
two and a bit years of occupancy and his view is that all the
staff consider the centre to be an extremely good working environment.
67. I am tempted to say "He would say
that, wouldn't he?" Could you answer my second question which
is how confident are you that you have a facility which is appropriate
for the next 125 years or 120 years or whatever?
(Professor Krebs) Clearly, the detailed equipment
and specification will evolve over time because science moves
rapidly. I am confident that the building itself has the flexibility
and durability to serve whatever purpose is required over the
next 120 years but the detailed purpose will change as the subject
evolves.
Mr Wardle
68. Good afternoon, Professor Krebs. Is
not what you said about scientists from all over the world being
content to come to this new centre a bit of a red herring—forgive
the unintended pun—and is it not the case that they would
have been content to do that even if there had not been any danger
of the overrun of which we have heard mention in earlier questioning.
Let me just add to that. If you look at Figure 5 would they not
have been even keener to come along if you had not had to delete
the items in the first box on the right-hand side of the page
under May 1990 and then the items moved to phase two and were
then deleted? Would this not have been more attractive because
it was a properly-managed project that would have included all
these facilities like a large conference room?
(Professor Krebs) Two parts to your question.
First of all, would people have been attracted to the centre were
there not speculation about a possible overrun. Remember this
figure of £12.5 million is not the current figure. That is
a hypothesis about the future. And of course they would want to
come even if that speculation were not mentioned. It is questionable
whether they would have come to the UK had not NERC and Southampton
University built an Oceanography Centre.
69. That is so obvious as to be almost trite.
Forgive me for pulling experience on you but I have probably been
around management longer than you have, Professor Krebs. We will
come to that in a second. Yes, I remember that the overrun is
not yet in the region of £20 million but if I have any feel
for this thing at all I should watch out because it might be and
you might just be back in front of this Committee when any hint
of complacency this afternoon about what the overrun is as opposed
to what it might be may be re-visited upon you. Let me strike
a friendlier note if I can. You have had a very distinguished
academic career and I believe included in that you did two years
as President of the Association of the Study of Animal Behaviour.
Is that right?
(Professor Krebs) Yes.
70. You are probably familiar with the layman's
guide, David McFarlane's Oxford Companion to Animal Behaviour.
A very useful book. I took it off the shelf this morning and I
opened it at the definition of "parasitism". It defines
it as "the interaction amongst species in which the parasite
exploits the host but generally does not kill it." Do you
think that is a fair analogy of the relationship between your
architects and the Council, or between the Council and the taxpayer,
which do you prefer?
(Professor Krebs) I certainly do not think the
Council is parasitic on the taxpayer. I think the relationship
between the architect and the Council is a business relationship
and you, Sir, come from a business background and can comment
in more detail, but I would have thought in many business relationships
there is a degree of jockeying for position in terms of——
71. Yes, I accept your point but if there
should be an over-run in all of this, where are you going to eat
up the money from? Is it not going to be the taxpayer? After due
contrition in front of the Committee of Public Accounts, who is
going to pay for this? Are you? Is the Council? I think we know
the answer to that, so let me ask you another question. In that
distinguished academic career, and believe me I genuinely respect
that, I cannot find any hint of any business or commercial experience.
What about the rest of your Council? What about Mr Hansford and
Mr Read? I cannot see it on their CVs. Is your Council—and
there is a point to this question—loaded with commercial,
property, management experience?
(Professor Krebs) The template of our Council
is that it has 14 members and a non-executive chairman. The non-executive
chairman is from a business background, Mr James Smith who used
to be the chairman of the Eastern Group. The Council itself has,
of the 14 members, seven from an academic background and seven
from the user community, in our case three of those are from the
public sector user community and four from the private sector.
72. That being the case I am trying to explore
why it is you ignored the advice—and this has already been
raised by colleagues—you had from September 1990 onwards
to appoint a project manager. What seems to have happened here
is that instead of appointing one person with relevant experience
and expertise, you decided to let the whole Council run the project,
which is a bit like that committee which sets out to design the
horse and designs the camel instead. Where was the management
know-how going to come from if you were prepared to forgo the
opportunity of appointing a project manager?
(Professor Krebs) It is not really the case that
the Council was running the project, although Council's view,
including the business representatives on Council obviously were
advising——
73. Forgive me for interrupting, I am being
very boring this afternoon, but if you look at Figure 15 and you
look at the date October 1993 and look at that paragraph, it clearly
says, "As a result, this responsibility had fallen on the
Council." Is that the case or is it not, because you have
just suggested it was not? Is the NAO Report with which you agreed
wrong, or have you come to a subsequent conclusion which causes
you to contradict what is here?
(Professor Krebs) I think there may be an ambiguity
in the meaning of the word "Council". It could refer
to the group of 14 people sitting round the table, or to the Natural
Environment Research Council as a corporate body, and I think
this refers to the latter.
74. Who then had responsibility for the
project? The Council as defined in the latter of those two?
(Professor Krebs) Yes. The project sponsor within
the NERC was Mr David Griffiths at the time, and the management
of the project was being done through the consultants.
75. So the Council had these non-executive
members, some of whom had experience of business and your non-executive
chairman apparently did too. You chose Mr Griffiths. Was he the
Director of Marine Sciences?
(Professor Krebs) No, the structure of NERC changed
as one of the appendices shows.
76. Because the Director of Marine Sciences
was put in charge of the project at some stage, was he not?
(Professor Krebs) In an early phase, he was, but
he then left the NERC when I came into NERC——
77. I am not altogether surprised. He may
have seen what was going on and decided to get out of the water.
Who were the two establishment officers who succeeded the Director
of Marine Sciences and what were their qualifications?
(Professor Krebs) The first was David Griffiths
and the second was Mr Hansford, who is on my right.
78. Mr Hansford very helpfully has provided
his CV, what about Mr Griffiths?
(Mr Hansford) Mr Griffiths' career was largely
spent in the Ministry of Defence and he joined the NERC around
1989. He was a career civil servant.
79. Thank you. Believe me, Mr Hansford,
I respect those career patterns, I really do, but I am looking
at the needs that might have been met here if one was going to
apply the appropriate skills and they seem to be missing. So a
committee dominated by scientists took a collective approach to
project management and we can see the results. Let us just look
at some of the specific problems, if we can turn to paragraphs
4.28 to 4.32. It seems the architects implemented over 1,600 instructions
without authorisation. If there had been anyone, to use an American
expression, riding herd on this project, how could that ever have
arisen? How could they ever have broken the agreed discretionary
limit time and time again, hundreds of times, 1,600 times again,
without any prior cost analysis, just flying by the seat of their
pants? I put it to you it is because they knew the only people
vetting this was your Council.
(Professor Krebs) I agree that should not have
happened.
| 
